Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the auth requirement (Pro/trial workspace) and the specific list of returned fields. It does not cover pagination or ordering, but these are not essential for a simple list tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and return fields, the second gives the alternative tool and the auth requirement. Zero filler, every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter list tool with annotations covering safety, the description fully covers purpose, output fields, the alternative for reading elements, and the auth prerequisite. There is no output schema, so the description's mention of 'uid, name, element count, url' fills that gap. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%; the only parameter project_id already has a description ('The unique identifier of the project'). The tool description mentions 'of a project' but does not add new semantics about the parameter format or additional constraints. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the exact verb and resource, 'List the whiteboards of a project', and enumerates the returned fields. It explicitly contrasts with get_whiteboard, saying 'Use get_whiteboard to read a board's elements', which clearly differentiates it from the closest sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a direct usage condition: it lists whiteboards, and when you need to read the elements of a board, it points you to get_whiteboard. It also states the prerequisite 'Requires a Pro or trial workspace', which is an explicit qualification for when the tool can be used.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.